Beechcraft Starship over London?
Discussion
Hi all,
Pretty certain I saw one of these flying over north west London yesterday.
Done a bit of Googling for a twin turboprop passenger plane with canards and 'push' prop engines and this was the closet match.
Had quite a distinctive sound - quite 'rough' for a small turboprop place.
Wikipedia suggest only a few were ever made and most were scrapped.
Was it something else I saw?
Pretty certain I saw one of these flying over north west London yesterday.
Done a bit of Googling for a twin turboprop passenger plane with canards and 'push' prop engines and this was the closet match.
Had quite a distinctive sound - quite 'rough' for a small turboprop place.
Wikipedia suggest only a few were ever made and most were scrapped.
Was it something else I saw?
No so much the engine it's the wing layout, props are working in dirty air...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canard_(aeronautics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canard_(aeronautics)
We're based on the final approach to Northolt so see some interesting stuff over the course of a year. The plane you are referring to is a regular visitor to Northolt. I know because it's the noisiest plane on the planet. It howls away to the point where it must surely have to pay a penalty every time it lands or takes off !
Henry
Henry
It'll be the Piaggio then!
You're right about the noise. I hear plenty of planes when I'm working in the garden studio, not many get me out of my seat to have a proper look.
Last time was what I assumed was the Queen's flight doing close formation practice last month - looked like a 146 and a couple of 125s banking VERY close together.
You're right about the noise. I hear plenty of planes when I'm working in the garden studio, not many get me out of my seat to have a proper look.
Last time was what I assumed was the Queen's flight doing close formation practice last month - looked like a 146 and a couple of 125s banking VERY close together.
I see a Piaggio over here a couple of times a year. Ferrari coming into Kidlington.
The distinctive noise is caused by the action of the prop blades in the turbine exhaust. Their USP is jet performance with prop-jet running costs.
Supposed to be a lower pilot work load than some exec jets as well.
http://www.piaggioaerospace.it/AvantiEVO_VirtualTo...
The distinctive noise is caused by the action of the prop blades in the turbine exhaust. Their USP is jet performance with prop-jet running costs.
Supposed to be a lower pilot work load than some exec jets as well.
http://www.piaggioaerospace.it/AvantiEVO_VirtualTo...
Edited by Paul Drawmer on Friday 10th February 22:22
Holy thread resurrection I know, but as the Beechcraft Starship has no airframe fatigue life limit, it's quite reasonable to resurrect a thread about it - as well as the plane itself.
Picking up on some of the comments;
The pusher design is actually more efficient in terms of fuel burn to thrust produced. Yes, the prop runs through wake air from the wing, but a variety of other efficiency gains outweigh that. I've yet to work out these to any degree of accuracy though as my normal engineering realm is -3,000 feet rather than +41,000. Putting the props behind the cabin also makes it quieter inside, but not necessarily outside.
The Starship died because it wasn't really any better than the Beechcraft King-Air it was suppose to replace, but it cost a lot more. Both were primarily because it was the first business plane to have an all carbon fibre body and wing. Beechcraft over designed it, as you do when you're the first at something new, and the FAA then added a load more requirements as they were nervy about certifying a 'plastic' plane, that made the airframe just as heavy as if it'd been made from metal. This is why it has no fatigue life limit, because it's so bloody strong, the stresses in the carbon fibre are tiny.
It was also the first plane to have a fully glass cockpit, where the tradition instruments are replaced by display panels. Being the early 90's though, the display panels were 14 cathode ray tube displays. They were very heavy and needed an awful lot of cooling fans. As that was all weight in the nose, it didn't help the C of G either.
Beechcraft did indeed buy back most of the 53 Starships they made before discontinuing the line. 6 I think were kept in private hands (4 in the US, 1 in Mexico and 1 in Germany) and a few more escaped the shredder by going to museums. I believe those in museums have their main spars drilled with big holes to prevent return to flying. I expect the men in suits at Beechcraft also shredded the moulds, so no Starship 2 will be coming from them.
However, in the world of 'what would I do if I had the money', the Starship is right up at the top of the list, refitted as follows:
Garmin 3000 avionics. This needs re-wiring the whole plane as the original avionics are integrated with the autopilot, but that's completely fine because of modification number 2
To use Jeremy Clarksons quote from the Grand Tour this week, 'the interior is a bit Birmingham spec', so out with the old metal and ruse leather seats and in with some CF framed ones and modern sound proofing to get it whisper quiet inside. Don't need 6 seats either, so drop a couple for more leg room and less weight.
The 1200 hp Pratt and Whitney turbo-prop is part of a family that now runs to 1700 hp with the same basic engine size, and we all know more power is simply better.
More power normally means faster prop speeds and more noise, but props have moved on as well, so off with the Hertzel 5 blade props and on with 7 or 9 blade CF scimitars. With this number of blades you actually have an open turbofan rather than a turbo-prop set up. Prop drag is higher, but the other efficiency gains from more blades out weigh that by a big margin.
So, Starship 2, with it's stunning looks, Burt Rutan genius design, 1000 lbs less weight, more thrust, ideal CofG, will probably cruise at something like 440 mph at 41,000 feet. Faster and higher than many light jets and burning a little over half the fuel, so a decent range and (in the realm of jets), low running costs.
All I need now is about £4.5m spare (a third for a Starship 1, a third to upgrade it and a third because it'll be a right bugger that'll go way over budget). Less than a new light jet, faster, more efficient, definitely way cooler, unlimited fatigue life and completely unique. In the world of man-maths it's a complete no-brainer!
edit: single pilot certified, so you can fly it yourself as and when you feel like it without having to hire a right hand seat
Picking up on some of the comments;
The pusher design is actually more efficient in terms of fuel burn to thrust produced. Yes, the prop runs through wake air from the wing, but a variety of other efficiency gains outweigh that. I've yet to work out these to any degree of accuracy though as my normal engineering realm is -3,000 feet rather than +41,000. Putting the props behind the cabin also makes it quieter inside, but not necessarily outside.
The Starship died because it wasn't really any better than the Beechcraft King-Air it was suppose to replace, but it cost a lot more. Both were primarily because it was the first business plane to have an all carbon fibre body and wing. Beechcraft over designed it, as you do when you're the first at something new, and the FAA then added a load more requirements as they were nervy about certifying a 'plastic' plane, that made the airframe just as heavy as if it'd been made from metal. This is why it has no fatigue life limit, because it's so bloody strong, the stresses in the carbon fibre are tiny.
It was also the first plane to have a fully glass cockpit, where the tradition instruments are replaced by display panels. Being the early 90's though, the display panels were 14 cathode ray tube displays. They were very heavy and needed an awful lot of cooling fans. As that was all weight in the nose, it didn't help the C of G either.
Beechcraft did indeed buy back most of the 53 Starships they made before discontinuing the line. 6 I think were kept in private hands (4 in the US, 1 in Mexico and 1 in Germany) and a few more escaped the shredder by going to museums. I believe those in museums have their main spars drilled with big holes to prevent return to flying. I expect the men in suits at Beechcraft also shredded the moulds, so no Starship 2 will be coming from them.
However, in the world of 'what would I do if I had the money', the Starship is right up at the top of the list, refitted as follows:
Garmin 3000 avionics. This needs re-wiring the whole plane as the original avionics are integrated with the autopilot, but that's completely fine because of modification number 2
To use Jeremy Clarksons quote from the Grand Tour this week, 'the interior is a bit Birmingham spec', so out with the old metal and ruse leather seats and in with some CF framed ones and modern sound proofing to get it whisper quiet inside. Don't need 6 seats either, so drop a couple for more leg room and less weight.
The 1200 hp Pratt and Whitney turbo-prop is part of a family that now runs to 1700 hp with the same basic engine size, and we all know more power is simply better.
More power normally means faster prop speeds and more noise, but props have moved on as well, so off with the Hertzel 5 blade props and on with 7 or 9 blade CF scimitars. With this number of blades you actually have an open turbofan rather than a turbo-prop set up. Prop drag is higher, but the other efficiency gains from more blades out weigh that by a big margin.
So, Starship 2, with it's stunning looks, Burt Rutan genius design, 1000 lbs less weight, more thrust, ideal CofG, will probably cruise at something like 440 mph at 41,000 feet. Faster and higher than many light jets and burning a little over half the fuel, so a decent range and (in the realm of jets), low running costs.
All I need now is about £4.5m spare (a third for a Starship 1, a third to upgrade it and a third because it'll be a right bugger that'll go way over budget). Less than a new light jet, faster, more efficient, definitely way cooler, unlimited fatigue life and completely unique. In the world of man-maths it's a complete no-brainer!
edit: single pilot certified, so you can fly it yourself as and when you feel like it without having to hire a right hand seat
Edited by Lorne on Sunday 24th March 16:03
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff